GCS committee to make policy change recommendations

November 13, 2002|By Hillary Dickerson

By Hillary Dickerson

Staff Writer

GAYLORD - In hopes of reaching some sort of a resolution or at least an understanding on the issue that's plagued the Gaylord Community Schools (GCS) Board of Education for the past month, Monday evening's meeting ended in near record time with only a single directive issued to the policy committee: Examine current board policy and draft recommended policy changes to address the board's role in approving the hiring of new staff.

Taking into account the concern and questions surrounding the recent hire of Meghan Aimoe, new administrative assistant to the superintendent, the committee is expected to meet sometime during the next month to draw up the change, the hope being that any future concerns board members have about a new hire's salary, benefits or contract language will not come too late, only to be blocked by policy that allows the superintendent to sign contracts without first seeking board approval.

Advertisement

But that directive to policy committee members - board president Richard Hoyner, Russ Soffredine and Ernie Grocock - didn't come until after a few tense moments of debate and discussion as the minutes of the Oct. 14 regular meeting went up for approval. Board member Wayne Jaycox made good on his promise to challenge the wording of the minutes as recorded by board secretary Melissa Reinelt. As Aimoe sat in the meeting with her attorney, Mark Lorence, on hand, Jaycox outlined for the board and the 40 audience members the chronology and reasoning used as he decided - prior to the October meeting - to offer a motion to table the contract of Aimoe. He did so because of what he believed to be an excessive number of sick and vacation days - 20 of each - in the one-year contract. Jaycox alluded to the chaotic atmosphere at the October meeting during which other board members jumped in to offer their opinions on the issue.

"Then there were a couple of major outbursts here. It became very confusing. Some of the people here didn't even know what my motion was," said Jaycox.

Soffredine told fellow board members and a full room of audience members that he thought the motion was to hire the other staff with the exception of Aimoe so that further discussion could first take place on Aimoe's contractual benefits. Once Soffredine heard the reading of the policy, however, he said he realized the superintendent had the right to hire clerical positions. The contract was signed, said Soffredine, giving the board no room for reflection. "What we've got to do if we're not satisfied is change our policy," asserted Soffredine.

Jaycox told the board GCS Supt. Carl Hilling had recited the incorrect policy at the October meeting, supporting his case for a secretary while actually hiring an administrative assistant with administrative benefits. Hilling jumped in to say he'd hired "basically a secretary."

"A secretary doesn't get four weeks' vacation and four weeks' sick leave," countered Jaycox, further emphasizing that in the future all motions offered should be read back by the secretary to prevent confusion.

Echoing sentiments more along the line of Jaycox, board member Natalie Davis chimed in to give her perspective on the broader issue at the table. "(Former superintendent's secretary and human resources director Cherie Nutter's) contract was gray: she had administrative benefits but yet when we reallocated staff in the Central Office, she was given the position of superintendent's secretary regardless of the fact that she had taken on (human resources) responsibilities," said Davis, citing months of board discussions about the opportunity they were given to examine and realign the contract. "Her contract fell in a gray area according to our legal counsel, Roy Henley. In replacing her, we had the perfect opportunity to clarify that."

Referring to past inequity between the superintendent's secretary position and other business office posts, Davis admitted there typically were a few perks to that particular job. "So we thought bringing in a new person was the perfect time to equalize that and have everyone within the Central Office on the same playing field with the same benefits," continued Davis. "Why should we have someone working three feet apart - and this person over here may even have more experience, as is the case here - and bring in a new person and automatically grant them something that other employees had to work 13 years for. This had nothing to do with Meghan … That was why I voted the way I did last month … But this was a situation that occurred. It shouldn't have. We discussed this at length for months."

Davis also pointed to the board's agenda and the fact a new payroll clerk for the business office - with education at the University of Michigan - was set for approval later on - at not nearly the level Aimoe started for a first-year employee.